Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest and does so: it discloses the exact response shape (one placement per job, each with placement id and current stage) and the underlying REST endpoint. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the candidate id does not exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences with zero filler: the payload contents come first, the downstream dependency second, and the raw endpoint last. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value and does: it lists the profile fields and clarifies the nested placements structure and why the placement id matters. Nothing an agent needs to call this read-only fetch correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('The candidate id.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the baseline, which is correct at 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one candidate's full profile') and enumerates the returned data: contact details, sources, tags, cover letter, CV URL, custom fields, ratings, and placements. The singular scope implicitly separates it from list_candidates and search_candidates, though it never names those siblings outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete reason this tool is needed: the placement id it returns is the input recruitee_move_candidate_stage requires, which effectively documents a call-chain. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over list_candidates/search_candidates for retrieving candidate data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.